Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)

On 03/28/2025 10:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 3/28/25 8:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
>
On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>
As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory
as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of
elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought —
reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local
and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>
Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s
lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness
monster of causality.
>
Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
like Chrysippus’ fate.
>
I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my
reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism
triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as
irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized
by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature.
>
>
Ross A. Kosmanson
March 28, 2025
In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone

>
Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick"
for something like "the Primal Lingam".
>
>

>
>
Hmm.. Alternatively, replacing every reference to the "Primal Lingam" in
the literature with "Physfit’s dick" would amplify that same sense.
>
>

Well, you know, about the usual attachments of the creative drive,
for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some thinking, the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat
larger concept than, "Physfit's dick", as with regards to that
then it's about both the masculine and feminine concepts and
otherwise usual notions of the cycles of creation, that it's
to be beyond the mundane psycho-sexual aspects, though as they're
present in the human condition, there's a general idea that such
notions as desires associated with the biological and psycho-sexual,
may and should be a nice place to visit, yet as well are associated
with the fallacies of the senses, and as well the bete humaine.
Then in that sense as that there's an idealism of the creative
of nature that even primitive peoples were aware of the theory
and practice of biological reproduction and as well the drives,
of the sexual and psycho-sexual, has that mostly it's not a thing,
in the technical, then that to be so it's the ideals, sort of
an absolute.
So, where "Suarez and DesCartes and Mersenne", are ideals,
that Socrates is not merely a man yet his school, then school
of a man (a person), of these schools of men (people), has
here that Socrates is immortal, and for example that Arnauld
is a great logician and with regards to the technical in as
well what's a theological setting, then that it is not so great
the significance of Arnauld's personhood, as his larger body of
work, Arnauld the man, Arnauld the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Arnauld
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1686a.pdf
Then, in reading something like Leibniz' correspondences with Arnauld,
the "truth" in what we'd have in a theory today is all given to deity,
much like when reading Heidegger, as one translater puts it, whenever
you read "Sein" in Heidegger, it's not ditinguished from his conception
or idea of the absolute, and the Absolute the definite article.
Now, one needn't adapt any particular monotheism to have that there's
still truth, and one may adopt a particular monotheism to have that
there's a real truth.  It can even be a sort of generic in that way.
"Arnauld now switches to a new topic, Leibniz’s paper
‘Brief demonstration of a memorable error of the Cartesians’,
which Leibniz had sent to him along with the letters of July
1686.] I have studied your little article and found it very sub-
tle. But be warned: the Cartesians may be able to answer
you that your attack doesn’t hurt them because it seems
to assume something that they believe to be false, namely
when a falling stone speeds up during its fall, it gives itself
that increasing velocity. They will say • that this acceleration
comes from the corpuscles · that the falling stone displaces · ,
which as they rise cause everything they find in their path
to fall, and transfer to them a part of their motion; and • that
it’s therefore not surprising that body B, having four times
· the mass of · body A, has more motion when it has fallen
one foot than A has after falling four feet. It’s because the
corpuscles that have pushed A or B have communicated
to that body motion proportionate to its mass. I don’t say
that this reply is correct, but I think you should at least
work on it to see whether it achieves anything. And I would
really like to know what the Cartesians have said about your
paper. . . ."
(Here we can see a reflection on DesCartes' theory of "subtle
matter" which is non-Newtonian, in not violating conservation
of energy, yet offers explanation of the theory of gravity as
heralds Fatio and LeSafe.)
Anyways your Epicurean (mis-)translation of "Kosmanson" doesn't
quite fulfill that to which he alludes, for what stands in to it.